The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 138-196

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 138... ... 138 A P P E N D I X C Literature Review Resources and Details Appendix C provides a list of resources reviewed as part of the literature review and a summary of state DOT practices with respect to spot, systemic, and systematic approaches to HSIP project identification, prioritization, and evaluation. Resources Reviewed The following is a list of resources included in the literature review. Read the entire page →
From page 139... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 139 16. Gross, F., T Read the entire page →
From page 140... ... 140 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program 38. Nebraska Department of Roads. Read the entire page →
From page 141... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 141 61. Torbic, D Read the entire page →
From page 142... ... 142 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Delaware Segments: critical rate method and minimum fatal and/or injury crash frequency Intersections: Crash Severity Index Segments: critical rate method and minimum fatal and/or injury crash frequency Intersections: Crash Severity Index HSIP Manual District of Columbia Weighted combination of crash frequency, rate, and severity Not applicable HSIP Annual Report Florida Expected fatal and injury crash frequency or observed fatal and injury crash frequency Expected fatal and injury crash frequency or observed fatal and injury crash frequency HSIP Manual Georgia Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, equivalent property damage only, excess Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, equivalent property damage only, excess HSIP Annual Report State DOT Performance Measure(s) for State Roads Performance Measure(s) Read the entire page →
From page 143... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 143 Maryland Crash frequency and Relative Severity Index Not applicable HSIP Annual Report Massachusetts Expected crashes or EPDO Index, focusing on fatalities and injuries Expected crashes or EPDO Index, focusing on fatalities and injuries HSIP Manual Michigan Time-of-return analysis, HSM analysis, safety studies, road safety audits, and call for projects Regional/local Traffic Safety Plans and call for projects HSIP Manual Minnesota Critical crash rate County Road Safety Plan, road safety audit, or other safety plans, focusing on fatal or serious injury crashes HSIP Manual State DOT Performance Measure(s) for State Roads Performance Measure(s) Read the entire page →
From page 144... ... 144 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Oregon Crash frequency, rate, and severity Crash frequency, rate, and severity HSIP Manual Pennsylvania Excess expected crashes, crash clusters, or crash rate Crash clusters or crash rate HSIP Manual Puerto Rico Crash frequency, Relative Severity Index Not applicable HSIP Annual Report Rhode Island Excess expected crash frequency, crash frequency (fatal and serious crashes only) , and Relative Severity Index Crash severity and frequency/exposure HSIP Annual Report South Carolina Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess expected Crash frequency, crash rate, critical rate, excess expected crash frequency HSIP Annual Report State DOT Performance Measure(s) Read the entire page →
From page 145... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 145 Same Spot Project Identification Method for State and Local Roads The state DOTs summarized in this section use the same method for identifying potential spot projects on state and local roads. Alabama Alabama identifies HSIP projects from a variety of sources, including the analysis of crash data by Alabama DOT and field observations by Alabama DOT, local governments, law enforcement agencies, EMS, and others. Read the entire page →
From page 146... ... 146 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program emphasis areas. Based on the crash data, Arizona DOT identifies candidate locations for safety improvement projects on the State highway system. Read the entire page →
From page 147... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 147 Connecticut Connecticut DOT employs a balanced safety management approach that includes a spot improvement approach and a systemic approach to identify, select, and implement HSIP projects. The spot improvement approach, also known as High Frequency Crash Locations, results in safety investments at specific locations. Read the entire page →
From page 148... ... 148 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program regional significance. Up to five consecutive years of roadway and crash data are used in network screening. Read the entire page →
From page 149... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 149 High Friction Surface: The State DOT uses HSM method to evaluate the roadway network for wet pavement condition crashes and provides analysis to indicate overrepresentation of target crashes. Intersection Emphasis: The State DOT conducts a network screening to prioritize intersections statewide based on safety performance. Read the entire page →
From page 150... ... 150 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Missouri Each district identifies how their share of HSIP funds will be programmed in accordance with Missouri's SHSP and the latest safety research and guidance. In general, Missouri screens for both intersection and non-intersection locations with an emphasis on locations that have experienced a higher frequency of severe crashes (34) Read the entire page →
From page 151... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 151 that meet warrant criteria are categorized as potentially hazardous locations. Crash analysis is performed, and collision diagrams are created for locations with the most severe and correctable crash patterns. Read the entire page →
From page 152... ... 152 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Texas The 2020 HSIP annual report indicates that Texas uses crash frequency and excess proportions of specific crash types to identify spot locations (39) Read the entire page →
From page 153... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 153 routes. As such, HSIP funds are typically used for highway safety projects on the State System. Read the entire page →
From page 154... ... 154 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program For countermeasure selection, the State DOT developed a list of countermeasures along with crash types, CRFs, expected lives saved, and HSIP funding eligibility for use in Caltrans' Local HSIP Program. The last step is to use the Transportation Injury Mapping System benefit-cost Calculation Tool to calculate the benefit-cost ratio for candidate projects. Read the entire page →
From page 155... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 155 Kansas State Projects Kansas uses crash frequency and expected crash frequency with EB adjustment to identify spot locations on the State system (47) Read the entire page →
From page 156... ... 156 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program trunkline call for projects. Locations are identified through the latest Transparency Report, high crash lists and maps, safety reviews, customer concerns, and pavement friction analysis. Read the entire page →
From page 157... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 157 New York State Projects State projects are primarily identified through a network screening process called the State Accident Surveillance System. This process identifies locations with higher than average crash rates for a particular facility type. Read the entire page →
From page 158... ... 158 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program South Dakota State Projects The 2020 HSIP annual report indicates that South Dakota uses crash frequency, crash rate, and excess expected crash frequency to identify spot locations (52) Read the entire page →
From page 159... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 159 Washington State Projects Washington's safety program includes the Crash Reduction Program. The Crash Reduction Program focuses on locations that experience fatal and injury crashes at intersections or along corridors. Read the entire page →
From page 160... ... 160 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Method for State Roads Method for Local Roads Arizona In-house methodology In-house methodology Arkansas Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool No apparent systemic program California In-house methodology In-house methodology Colorado No apparent systemic program No apparent systemic program Connecticut In-house methodology In-house methodology Delaware Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool No apparent systemic program District of Columbia Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Not applicable Florida FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Georgia In-house methodology In-house methodology Hawaii In-house methodology In-house methodology Idaho In-house methodology In-house methodology Illinois Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Indiana In-house methodology In-house methodology Iowa In-house methodology In-house methodology Kansas In-house methodology In-house methodology Kentucky In-house methodology In-house methodology Louisiana FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Maine FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Maryland No apparent systemic program No apparent systemic program Massachusetts Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Michigan In-house methodology In-house methodology Minnesota FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool In-house methodology Mississippi Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Missouri In-house methodology In-house methodology Montana No apparent systemic program No apparent systemic program Nebraska In-house methodology In-house methodology Nevada No apparent systemic program No apparent systemic program New Hampshire FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Read the entire page →
From page 161... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 161 State DOT Method for State Roads Method for Local Roads New Jersey In-house methodology In-house methodology New Mexico In-house methodology In-house methodology New York In-house methodology In-house methodology North Carolina In-house methodology In-house methodology North Dakota No apparent systemic program FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Ohio In-house methodology In-house methodology Oklahoma In-house methodology In-house methodology Oregon FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Pennsylvania In-house methodology In-house methodology Puerto Rico In-house methodology In-house methodology Rhode Island In-house methodology In-house methodology South Carolina In-house methodology In-house methodology South Dakota In-house methodology In-house methodology Tennessee In-house methodology In-house methodology Texas FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Utah usRAP usRAP Vermont FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool In-house methodology Virginia FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool Washington Unspecified but appears to be consistent with FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool In-house methodology West Virginia In-house methodology In-house methodology Wisconsin In-house methodology In-house methodology Wyoming In-house methodology In-house methodology Same Systemic Project Identification Method for State and Local Roads The State DOTs summarized in this section use the same method for identifying potential systemic projects on State and local roads. Alabama Alabama identifies systemic HSIP projects through safety studies, the use of the RISE program, and usRAP. Read the entire page →
From page 162... ... 162 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Alaska Alaska does not specify the methodology the State DOT uses to identify systemic projects. It indicates that systemic projects should combine locations with similar characteristics, risk factors, and potential for crash types that will be addressed by planned countermeasures. Read the entire page →
From page 163... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 163 Florida Florida DOT uses the FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool (3) to identity systemic projects, which involves three steps. Read the entire page →
From page 164... ... 164 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Louisiana The Louisiana DOTD Highway Safety Section is primarily responsible for performing statewide systemic studies and reviewing any systemic studies submitted by others for HSIP funding. The State DOT identifies high-risk features based on crash trends and selects and implements countermeasures at locations that possess those high-risk features. Read the entire page →
From page 165... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 165 Missouri Missouri utilizes a large portion of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements (50% or more) , but the process to identify these projects is unclear. Read the entire page →
From page 166... ... 166 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program approximately 70% of HSIP funds to systemic projects. The process to identify these projects is unclear, but projects include the following systemic improvements (56) Read the entire page →
From page 167... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 167 HSIP including cable median barriers, high friction surface treatment, wrong way exit ramp countermeasures, elimination of substandard cable guard rail, and rumble strips. Under the systemic approach, Pennsylvania identifies promising cost-effective strategies and then identifies sets of locations where it is cost effective to apply the strategy. Read the entire page →
From page 168... ... 168 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Tennessee Tennessee utilizes approximately 40% of HSIP funds to address systemic improvements, but the process to identify these projects is unclear (53) Read the entire page →
From page 169... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 169 • Safety Edge • Traffic control device rehabilitation • Upgrade guardrails Wisconsin Wisconsin focuses on spot projects and does not appear to use the systemic approach. If there is a systemic approach, it is not documented in the HSIP General Information. Read the entire page →
From page 170... ... 170 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program implement using a systemic approach from low to high. Local agencies can use this list to identify potential low-cost systemic countermeasures that mitigate the local agencies' primary crash type trends. Read the entire page →
From page 171... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 171 and serious injury crashes. These include horizontal curve delineation, edgeline pavement markings, rumble strips, signal backplates, and stop-controlled intersection sign upgrade projects. Read the entire page →
From page 172... ... 172 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Vermont State Projects There are three components of the systemic method: (a) Systemic State Road Safety, (b) Read the entire page →
From page 173... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 173 Idaho Idaho requires individual projects to mitigate highway safety concerns in an identified highway safety corridor or specific location or to address a highway safety problem utilizing a systematic approach. The systematic approach applies a known proven countermeasure to improve an expanded area, such as a corridor, multiple intersections, or a defined area. Read the entire page →
From page 174... ... 174 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program In the HSIP, some of the strategies appear to be related to systematic applications and others appear to be more systemic in nature. Examples of systematic project types listed in the documentation include rumble strips, curve ahead pavement markings and signs, high tension cable median barrier, high friction surface treatments, and wrong-way driving countermeasures. Read the entire page →
From page 175... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 175 Local Projects Local roads are usually not given HSIP funds from the State (48) Read the entire page →
From page 176... ... 176 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program State DOT Project Prioritization Source(s) Kentucky Different approach for spot and systemic projects HSIP Manual Louisiana Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Maine Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Maryland Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Annual Report Massachusetts Not identified HSIP Manual Michigan Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Minnesota Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Manual Mississippi Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Missouri Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Montana Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Nebraska Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Nevada Different approach for spot, corridor, pedestrian, and bicycle projects HSIP Manual New Hampshire Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual New Jersey Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Manual New Mexico Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report New York Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual North Carolina Different approach for spot, systemic, and vulnerable user projects HSIP Manual North Dakota Different approach for State and local projects HSIP Manual Ohio Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Oklahoma Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Oregon Different approach for spot and systemic projects HSIP Manual Pennsylvania Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Puerto Rico Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Rhode Island Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual, HSIP Annual Report South Carolina Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report South Dakota Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Tennessee Not identified HSIP Annual Report Texas Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Utah Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Vermont Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Virginia Different approach for spot and systemic projects HSIP Manual Washington Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual West Virginia Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Annual Report Wisconsin Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Wyoming Same approach applied to all projects HSIP Manual Read the entire page →
From page 177... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 177 Same Project Prioritization Approach Applied to All Projects Alabama Alabama uses the benefit-cost ratio as the primary factor in setting project priorities. The State DOT also considers other factors to account for changing needs and conditions across the State. Read the entire page →
From page 178... ... 178 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Arizona All projects submitted by LPAs, COGs, MPOs, and State agencies are selected on the same funding levels with priority going to projects with highest benefit-cost ratio in terms of fatal and suspected serious injury crashes. The State DOT also considers other factors, including holistic effectiveness (4 E's of Safety [engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services] Read the entire page →
From page 179... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 179 • Environmental impacts and mitigation: Florida DOT gives slightly lower priority to projects with substantial environmental impacts. • Project readiness: Projects receive higher priority if they could be scheduled sooner. Read the entire page →
From page 180... ... 180 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Michigan Michigan has different programs for State and local roads. While Michigan prioritizes projects within each program separately, they use the same prioritization process. Read the entire page →
From page 181... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 181 for prioritization. New York is transitioning to the use of benefit-cost ratio based on fatal and injury crashes as the primary method for prioritizing projects. Read the entire page →
From page 182... ... 182 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Vermont Project prioritization involves the following considerations: • Eligibility for HSIP funding, • Benefit-cost ratio or risk reduction, • Link to SHSP emphasis area, • Total targeted severe crashes, • Estimated project costs, • Available HSIP funding, • Engineering review, • Public support, and • Implementation. Spot projects are mainly prioritized using the incremental benefit-cost ratio method. Read the entire page →
From page 183... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 183 California State Projects In general, the proposed projects are prioritized statewide based on benefit-cost ratio with a minimum threshold of 1.0. Depending on the statewide safety needs, Caltrans considers the following criteria: • Funding set-asides: The State DOT may have set-asides for certain countermeasures when common roadway safety concerns are identified statewide. Read the entire page →
From page 184... ... 184 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program based on available funding. However, the HSIP annual report also indicates that Georgia uses various methods to prioritize projects depending on the program within the HSIP. Read the entire page →
From page 185... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 185 locations are identified, Kansas uses a competitive process for funding based on Part B of the Highway Safety Manual and engineering judgment (47) Read the entire page →
From page 186... ... 186 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program identify potential locations for safety enhancement projects on non-state highway systems based on network screening lists provided by the State DOT. Each MPO screens the applications to verify all required elements are included. Read the entire page →
From page 187... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 187 approximately 5 to 10 intersections. Districts then perform field reviews and crash analysis to further refine the prioritized list. Read the entire page →
From page 188... ... 188 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Virginia The project selection method for spot projects uses an objective 100-point scoring system. Prioritization scoring includes such categories as problem identification, proposed improvements, cost estimate, funding source, project schedule, benefit-cost ratio, and supporting documents. Read the entire page →
From page 189... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 189 Arkansas Arkansas is developing a new HSIP Process that includes a method to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the HSIP. In the past, Arkansas evaluated several completed projects to help justify and expand the use those countermeasures at the statewide level. Read the entire page →
From page 190... ... 190 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Iowa The Office of Traffic and Safety evaluates the safety performance and cost effectiveness of each HSIP project based on three to five years of pre- and post-implementation data. The Office of Traffic and Safety then meets with district representatives to share the program evaluation results, review the status of prior and upcoming projects, and discuss potential modifications to the HSIP Manual. Read the entire page →
From page 191... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 191 Nebraska Nebraska evaluates completed highway safety projects and programs to inform other components of the HSIP. To determine the effect of highway safety improvements, Nebraska has focused on crash-based project evaluations for most completed safety projects. Read the entire page →
From page 192... ... 192 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program Oregon Oregon has traditionally performed simple before-after evaluations as part of the HSIP annual reporting requirement. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania evaluates projects based on before and after crash data in terms of number and severity. Read the entire page →
From page 193... ... Literature Review Resources and Details 193 Before-After Study with Traffic Volume Correction Florida Florida evaluates HSIP projects using the FHWA HSIP Evaluation Guide, including spreadsheet templates and instructions. The State DOT evaluates the effectiveness of projects, countermeasures, and programs as well as program management factors, such as percent of apportioned funds obligated to HSIP projects. Read the entire page →
From page 194... ... 194 Practices for Balancing Safety Investments in a Comprehensive Safety Program North Carolina North Caronia uses more rigorous analyses such as EB adjustment for countermeasure-level evaluations and systemic projects. Rhode Island Rhode Island developed its first State-specific CMF using the before-after method with EB adjustment (51) Read the entire page →
From page 195... ... Abbreviations and acronyms used without denitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) Read the entire page →

From page 138...

... 138 A P P E N D I X C Literature Review Resources and Details Appendix C provides a list of resources reviewed as part of the literature review and a summary of state DOT practices with respect to spot, systemic, and systematic approaches to HSIP project identification, prioritization, and evaluation. Resources Reviewed The following is a list of resources included in the literature review.